Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Defining the text as a discursive micro-universe places the text in the position of
autonomy excluded from extralinguisitic phenomena in text analysis. The organiza-
tion of discursive structures as narrative creates a distinction between the two levels
of representation and analysis: a manifest, or surface level and an immanent, or
deep level (Fig.50.1).
This principle can be applied to other systems not necessarily dependent upon
natural language (e.g., cinema, painting, architecture, sculpture, etc.) in order to
isolate and explain the structural aspects of the medium as text. For example, in
P. P. Trifonas()
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
e-mail: peter.trifonas@utoronto.ca
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 1099
P. P. Trifonas (ed.), International Handbook of Semiotics,
DOI10.1007/978-94-017-9404-6_50
1100 P. P. Trifonas
attempting to bring to light the interrelations between the structural elements con-
stituting a pictorial text (e.g., color, texture, form, composition, etc.) and, thereby,
isolate and explain the means of signification as well as the content, it is possible to
avoid speculation and ground the analysis within the structural aspects of the text
itself. The analysis can then be extended to examining the role of the viewer in rela-
tion to the production of the text (Eco 1976, 1984).
Greimas linguistic framework is based on de Saussures (1916) concept of dif-
ference (see Derrida 1974), or the notion of binary oppositions and distinctiveness
of functional phonology as presence and absence, and the glossematic sign model
(see Appendix A) of Hjelmslev (1943). Structural lexicology forms the basis for the
semantic analysis of textual structures. Semiotics, according to Greimas and Cour-
ts (1979), is operational as a theory of signification when it situates its analyses
on levels both higher and lower than the sign (p.147).
On the lower level, semes, or the minimal unit of semantic componential analy-
sis, function to differentiate significations and form semic systems subdivided into
semic categories. On the higher levels, are textual units which produce semantic
entities greater than signs. Perron (cited from Greimas 1988) explains the model of
generative discourse analysis as defined by generative trajectory,
generative trajectory designates the way in which the components and sub-components
fit together and are linked together. Three autonomous general areas: semio-narrative struc-
tures, discursive structures and textual structures have been identified within the general
economy of the theory first to construct the ab quo instance of the generation of significa-
tion where semantic substance is first articulated and constituted into a signifying form, and
then to set up the intermediate mediating stages which transform the semantic substance
into the last instances ad quem where signification is manifested. (p. xviii)
By situating the seme within perception, in a place where significations are con-
stituted, we noticed that it received there a kind of existence because of its partici-
pation in two signifying ensembles at the same time: the seme, indeed is affirmed
by disjunction within the semic categories, and it is confirmed by junction with
other semes within semic groupings which we have called semic figures and bases
(p.118).
It is a minimalist definition of structure where primacy is given to relations be-
tween elements based on difference. For example, the difference between son and
daughter at the lexical level is due to the disjunction characterized metalinguisti-
cally by the features male and female as part of a semic hierarchy of the content
substance sense (see Appendix A). The common semic category of the two features,
sex, presupposes any semantic resemblance or conjunction between the two fea-
tures and sets the ground from which the articulation of signification emerges (Grei-
mas 1983). A linear semantic axis with the differential terms male and female would
represent the semes involved as elementary structures of signification. A semantic
axis may have different articulations, or lexical fields, in different languages, thus,
transforming the content form at the word level. The deep level is organized in
the visual representation of the semiotic square where the substance of content is
articulated and constituted as form of content (Perron cited from Greimas 1988,
p.xviii) (Fig.50.2)
The oppositions constituting semantic axes may be represented in the semiotic
square as two types of logical relations: contradiction, or the relation existing be-
tween two terms of the binary category assertion/negation, and contrariety, or the
implied contrariness of one term with the other. For example, the seme s1, male,
is described as the opposition (in terms of presence or absence) of non-s1 ( s1 ),
nonmale, in which the seme male is absent. The contrary of s1, male, is s2,
female, which expands the square to a four-term constellation to include the con-
trary of s2 which is non-s2 ( s2 ), nonfemale. Complimentarity or implication now
appears between the terms s1 and s2 or s2 and s1 : male implies nonfemale and
female implies nonmale (see Greimas 1970). The deep structural nature of
Non-Male Non-Female
1102 P. P. Trifonas
the semiotic square can be seen in the fact that there may be no lexical equivalent
at the surface levels of manifestation to express nonmale or nonfemale as con-
cepts. Therefore, the fundamental semantics at the deep level contains the neces-
sary semantic categories that form the elementary structures of signification and the
fundamental syntax consisting of the relations and transformations which derive
and constitute those structures.
interpretive indexes. The second set are extensional operations that go beyond the
conscious decoding of lexical meaning as a communicative act intended to realize
the virtual possibilities of language, or intensional operations, and into the realm
of activating possible worlds by determining the coherence and plausibility of the
vision. For example, the representation of a character or event may be incorporated
into the syntagmatic structure of the plot and fabula constituting the text, yet, at the
paradigmatic level they have no intertextual or cultural validity, and be relevant only
to the textual world as an intratextual paradigm. Mythological or fairy tale genres
refer to creatures such as dragons, ghosts, and goblins that are unrealistic in a cultur-
al sense because they do not exist in the external world; however, within the world
of fairy tales and mythology, as determined by the story and fabula within specific
genres, dragons, ghosts, and goblins are perfectly plausible and realistic characters.
It is at this point that actors (like these characters) are formed as the result of genre
function and influences upon the form and perception of narrative utterance (NU).
50.2Isotopy
Isotopy describes the coherence and homogeneity of text which allows for the se-
mantic concatenation, or chain linking, of utterances (Greimas and Courts 1979).
In order to semantically disambiguate terms within a text and assure textual coher-
ence and homogeneity, there must be iterativity, or recurrence, of a classeme (either
semic category or repeated contextual seme) which connects the semantic elements
of discourse (sememes). Eco (1984) explains,
The term isotopy designated dabord, a phenomenon of semic iterativity throughout a syn-
tagmatic chain; thus any syntagm (be it a phrase, a sentence, a sequence of sentences com-
posing a narrative text) comprehending at least two content figurae (in Hjelmslevs sense)
is to be considered as the minimal context for a possible isotopy. (p.190)
On a semantic level, Greimas (1983) uses two expressions le chien aboye (the dog
barks) and le commissaire aboye (the commissioner barks; p.81) to illustrate that
aboye (barks) has two classemes: human and canine. It is the presence of the sub-
jects, the dog or the commissioner, that reiterates one of the two classemes and
establishes the contextual selection for a literal or figurative reading of the text. A
syntagmatic extension of an isotopy is constituted by the textual segments that are
connected by one classeme. Ultimately, a text which fosters a single interpreta-
tion in its semantic structure is a simple isotopy, whereas, bi-isotopy is the result of
textual ambiguities or metaphorical elements that promote polysemous readings.
Pluri- or poly-isotopy is the superimposition of multiple semantic levels in a text
(Eco 1984).
The first stage of the theory considered: (1) syntactical (grammarial) isotopies,
(2) semantic isotopies, (3) actorial isotopies, (4) partial isotopies (or smaller textual
units that are condensed into a text as the result of summarizing macropositions),
and (5) global isotopies (as the result of partial isotopies) (Eco 1984). The second
stage incorporates recurrent thematic and figurative categories where the typology
1104 P. P. Trifonas
Traditional motif research in narrative has considered actors (on two levels as char-
acters, in anthropomorphic or zoomorphic forms, and lexical subjects, or actants,
of discourse within a sentence engaged in a thematic role), items (or objects), and
incidents as minimal units of narrative analysis (Greimas and Courts 1979). Propp
(1928), however, identified the minimal unit of narrative analysis as the function in
terms of an action which cannot be defined apart from its place in the context of
narration (p.21). Nth (1990) explains,
Functions as units of action are narrative invariants, while the agents performing those
actions are textual variables. Within his corpus of one hundred fairy tales, Propp discovered
a relatively small number of 31 such invariant functions, as opposed to a large number of
persons, objects or events (corresponding to the traditional motif). (p.371)
For example, after the initial situation is established in a narrative text, a series of
functions may be cited to explain the narrative syntax and progression of the fabula
(story; see Appendix C). The 31 functions are distributed across seven spheres of
action as performed by various characters such as (1) the villain, (2) the donor,
(3) the helper, (4) the sought-for person, (5) the dispatcher, (6) the hero, and (7)
the false hero (cf. Greimas 1983, p.201). From Propp (1928), Souriau (1950; see
Greimas 1983) and Tesnier (1959; see Greimas 1983), Greimas (1966) formulated
a mythical model of narrative actants containing three binary oppositions: (1)
subject vs. object, (2) sender vs. receiver, and (3) helper vs. opponent.
Essentially, the fabula (or story elements of the narrative) and every other nar-
rative structure is reduced to purely formal positions as actants (defined lexically
as that which accomplishes or undergoes an act, e.g., subjectobject, sender and
receiver, and narratively as classifications of an actor according to genre) which
produce actantial roles (Eco 1979). The syntactic order of the actantial categories
correspond to a subject wants an object, encounters an opponent, finds a helper,
obtains the object from a sender, and gives it to a receiver sequence or variations
thereof. The NU is, therefore, defined as a process composed of a function (F), in
the Proppian sense, and an actant (A), or NU=F(A). The logic of relationships is
based upon knowledge, desire, and power where the transmission of a mes-
sage can be analyzed syntactically as the transferal of knowledge and the drama of
the acquisition of power (desire being the motivating force behind the action).
The helperopponent dichotomy was later abandoned (see Greimas 1970) as a
major actantial category and the value transfer occurring among the major actants
explained as relationships of conjunction and disjunction according to the semiotic
square. Following from the latter model, a narrative sequence can then be said to
begin with a relation of conjunction between two actants (subject or object), fol-
lowed by a disjunction (as a problem or transition phase) which is reconciled in the
50 From Semantics to Narrative: The Semiotics of A. J. Greimas 1105
Procedure of Procedure of
improvement degradation
State of
deficiency
50.4Conclusion
References
Arnheim, R. 1954. Art and visual perception. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Barthes, R. 1964. Rhetoric of the image. In Image-music-text, ed. R. Barthes, 3251. New York:
Hill & Wang.
Barthes, R. 1967. Criticism and truth. (Trans: K. Kevnenan). London: Athlone Press.
1106 P. P. Trifonas
Barthes, R. 1970. S/Z. (Trans: Richard Miller). New York: Hill & Wang.
Bogdan, D. 1986. Virtual and actual forms of literary response. Journal of Aesthetic Education 20
(2): 5157.
Bogdan, D. 1989. From stubborn structure to double mirror: The evolution of Northrup Frye's
theory of poetic creation and response. Journal of Aesthetic Education 3 (2): 3443.
Bremond, C. 1970. Morphology of the French folktale. Semiotica 2:247276.
Carter, C. 1972. Syntax in language and painting. The Structuralist 12:5054.
Cassidy, M. F. 1982. Toward integration: Education, instructional technology and semiotics. ECTJ
30 (2): 7589.
Dasenbrock, R. W. 1991. Do we write the text we read? College English 53 (1): 718.
Derrida, J. 1974. Of grammatology. (Trans: G. C. Spivak). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Dewey, J. 1922. Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court.
Eco, U. 1968. La struttura assente. Milano: Bompiani.
Eco, U. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eco, U. 1979. The role of the reader. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eco, U. 1984. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eco, U., and M. Constantino, eds. 1989. On the medieval theory of signs. In Foundations of semi-
otics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Finnegan, J. 1982. Aristotelian causality and the teaching of literary theory. Journal of Aesthetic
Education 16 (1): 1128.
Frow, J. 1982. The literary frame. Journal of Aesthetic Education 16 (2): 2530.
Frye, N. 1957. Anatomy of criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gombrich, E. 1960. Art and illusion. London: Phaidon Press.
Goodman, N. 1968. Languages of art. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Greimas, A. J. 1970. On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory (Trans: P. J. Perron & F. H.
Collins). Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
Greimas, A. J. 1983. Structural semantics: An attempt at method (Trans: D. MacDowell, R. Schle-
ifer & A. Velie). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. (Original work published 1966).
Greimas, A. J., and J. Courtes. 1979. Semiotics and language: An analytical dictionary (Trans: L.
Crist, D. Patte, J. Lee, E. McMahon II, G. Phillips, & M. Rengstorf). Bloomington: Indiana
University Press. (Original work published 1979).
Hjelmslev, L. 1943. Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Hodge, R. 1990. Literature as discourse: Textual strategies in English and History. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press.
Hunt, E. 1978. Mechanics of verbal ability. Psychological Review 85:109130.
Hunt, E. 1979. Intelligence as information processing concept. Journal of British Psychology
71:449474.
Hunt, E., and F. Agnoli. 1991. The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychological perspective.
Psychological Review 98 (3): 377389.
Hunt, E., and M. R. Banaji. 1988. The Whorfian hypothesis revisited: A cognitive science view
of linguistic and cultural effects on thought. In Indigenous cognition: Functioning in cultural
context, eds. J. W. Berry, S. H. Irvine, and E. Hunt, 5784. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Iser, W. 1978. The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore: John Hopkins Uni-
versity Press.
Krampen, M. 1973. Iconic signs, supersigns and models. Versus 4:101108.
Kristeva, J. 1969. Semiotike. Paris: Seuil.
Lotman, Y. 1990. Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture. (Trans: A. Shukman). New
York: Taurus & Co.
Martinet, A. 1962. A functional view of language. Oxford: Clarendon.
Mateescu, C. A. 1974. Toward a structural approach to poetic language. Poetics 11:4661.
Metz, C. 1968. Film language: A semiology of the cinema. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, W. J. T. 1986. Iconology: Image, text, ideology. Chicago: University Press.
Mitias, M. 1982. The ontological status of the literary work of art. Journal of Aesthetic Education
16 (4): 4252.
50 From Semantics to Narrative: The Semiotics of A. J. Greimas 1107
Peter Pericles Trifonas is a professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/Uni-
versity of Toronto. His areas of interest include ethics, philosophy of education, cultural
studies, literacy, and technology. Among his books are the following: Revolutionary Pedago-
gies: Cultural Politics, Instituting Education, and the Discourse of Theory, The Ethics of Writing:
Derrida, Deconstruction, and Pedagogy, Ethics, Institutions and The Right to Philosophy (with
Jacques Derrida), Roland Barthes and the Empire of Signs, Umberto Eco & Football, Pedago-
gies of Difference, Deconstructing the Machine (with Jacques Derrida), International Handbook
of Semiotics, CounterTexts: Reading Culture.